You're absolutely right. Only this time, while the sacrifice of the Old Testament was to cover-up the sins of the people (but did not pay for their sins), Jesus paid for the sins of all. Jesus in Romans 3:23-24 is the Propitiation, meaning that He is the stand-in, a scape-goat, for our sins.

So while the sacrifice of the Old Testament requires the priests to kill every year; Jesus died once and for all (Hebrews 10:8-12).

For someone who preach liberal tolerance, you sure are not tolerant and quite judgmental. Not to mention you sure preach your religion quite loud.

Doesn't surprise me really. Keep your vegan religion to yourself. And if you're not a vegan, then you're just uninformed.

Before OT, burn offerings are complete, burned to ash. They are meant as symbolic "to give back what you are given." After that and in the Leviticus laws, they are actually permitted to be eaten by priests. Do you understand? The food offered on the burnt offering are eaten by the priests. In sense, they have a BBQ. You have a problem with BBQ?

Problem with you liberals is your lack of contextual understanding and critical thinking. You read OT and you just spew your bigot hatred "Oh this is a Christian thing." Yet you failed to understand ALL cultures back then regardless of religion has done things and rituals which modern day would consider "primitive."

ALL culture rooted from primitive cultures. Including whatever culture YOU are from. Whatever your culture, your roots, came from cultures which embraced slavery, which sacrificed animals, which had wars, etc... etc.. Yet you specifically solely focus on attacking Christianity despite the fact, Christianity as the word implies, comes from the NT, which ended all of these practices.

A huge part of the bible is a "historical" account of the Israelite people. It listed what they did in the past, much like what Chinese people did in their past. Yet Chinese culture in the past also has canniblism, human sacrifice, ... but we don't hear a peep from you about that. Right?

Want to know more? Primitive Romans and Greeks trace their homosexual and beastiality practices back to the Mesopotamia times. They were practiced commonly then. Why aren't you denouncing homosexuality and beastiality as "primitive?"

This is why I can't stand liberals. They are limited in their thinking and understanding and yet put themselves on a moral podium.

"For someone who preach liberal tolerance, you sure are not tolerant and quite judgmental."

I'm not tolerant of foolishness, that's true.

"Not to mention you sure preach your religion quite loud."

I don't have a religion. If you think atheism is a religion, I strongly suggest you look up the definition of religion in a dictionary.

"Keep your vegan religion to yourself. And if you're not a vegan, then you're just uninformed."

Who said anything about being a vegan? Where did that even come from in this conversation? I'm not a vegan and never have been.

"After that and in the Leviticus laws, they are actually permitted to be eaten by priests. Do you understand? The food offered on the burnt offering are eaten by the priests. In sense, they have a BBQ. You have a problem with BBQ?"

I have no problem with BBQ. I do have a problem with animals being slaughtered by the thousands to appease an angry Middle Eastern tribal deity.

"Problem with you liberals is your lack of contextual understanding and critical thinking."

Yes...I'm the one who lacks critical thinking skills...okie dokie loki.

"You read OT and you just spew your bigot hatred"

I didn't spew any bigoted hatred. I'm not sure why you think that. Do you think any criticism of the Bible is bigoted hatred?

Yes, cultures today have their roots in cultures which did those things. But my culture today doesn't embrace those things. Christianity still embraces primitive sacrificial atonement. That is the entire basis of the religion.

You don't hear a peep from me about ancient Chinese cannibalism because that wasn't what was being discussed. If indeed people in ancient China practiced cannibalism, I would condemn that as well, because they're just going to be hungry again in an hour.

If something happened in ancient times and still happens today, such as homosexuality, it's not considered primitive. Primitive things are things which people used to do in ancient times but which no one does anymore in modern society.

"This is why I can't stand liberals. They are limited in their thinking and understanding and yet put themselves on a moral podium."

It sounds like you want to have it both ways. You say the OT animal sacrifices hearken forward to the death of Jesus, but the death of Jesus hearkens back to the OT animal sacrifices.

It's clear from reading the Bible that the god of the Bible demanded animal sacrifices as appeasement, just like the "pagan" deities did.

And if it didn't appease god, why did he demand it on the first place?

It still makes no sense how god can sacrifice himself to himself. If he's god, he can't die. And if he can die, he's not god.

"Now as for the barbarity of the sacrifices... would you rather that humans are sacrificed instead?"

I'd rather have no one sacrificed. No humans, and no animals.

"God never asked to have humans sacrificed which included child sacrifices."

That's false. God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. You'll probably say it was just a test, but he still commanded it. If you felt someone was telling you to kill your child, would you think that came from god or Satan? Your god often does things throughout the Bible that would be expected of Satan.

So you do not see the difference? Pagan: "Sacrifice an animal, your sins are paid" but God of Scripture: "Your sins are covered (but not paid)"
.
I think you're trying to paint both religious sacrifices the same, simply because it involved the lives of animals. It appalls you that animals had to be slain.

I don't think that an animal's blood is sufficient to pay for sins. My objection is that I don't think anything can pay for sins, because I reject the concept of sin. People can do things which are wrong, bad, even evil. But sin is a specifically religious concept which I don't believe exists.

I consider it a primitive and infantile concept (as well as unjust) that killing animals (or humans) can atone for wrongdoing. It's primitive and infantile because it's a form of magic thinking. Magic thinking is attributing causal relationships to things which aren't connected; for example, thinking that prayer can miraculously heal illness, or an incantation can bring rain to a drought-stricken area, or that casting a spell can bring good fortune or wealth. And it's unjust because you're killing a being for your wrongdoing who themselves did nothing wrong. Animal sacrifice is one of the most archaic and primitive forms of attempting to influence reality by appealing to some magical or supernatural force or entity. It's nonsense.

Sin is not a magical word in scripture. Before I go further, I need to define what "Sin" is In the Bible. "Sin" is defined as "Missing the Mark" of righteousness. Sin, because of the severity of it, is also like a debt in which it only mounts as time passes. Because of that, the offender is separated from God as He not only ignores their prayers but they cannot dwell with Him in heaven (Romans 3:23, Isaiah 59:1-2, Habakkuk 1:13, & Psalm 5:5). What is a sin, and what isn't is according to God who by nature is good (Psalm 136:1).

With that said, you actually do believe in the notion of sin, only that you call it a "Bad thing" or "Evil". Moreover, we're given a God-given conscience knowing instinctively what is right and what is wrong (Genesis 1:26 & Romans 2:14-16).

For example, you know that killing in self-defense is not evil even though it had ended a life of another but on the other hand, killing someone who had done nothing to deserve it, is. There's something inherently wrong with the latter act; we know it because we feel it our conscience. There is also something peculiarly wrong with the stronger preying on the weaker; or that a taking of an item, not ours is also wrong. We feel it weighing within ourselves. Thus we have a conscience; otherwise, no act has any moral significance; indeed, the only thing that matters is survival and gratification.

The fact that your god made people inferior to him then punishes them for being inferior to him makes him look really stupid.

You say sin keeps people from going to Heaven. No one has ever shown me compelling evidence that Heaven even exists. If you have some, I'd like to hear it.

If god is by nature good, then that means he can't do anything wrong, correct? Yet I'm sure you would say killing babies is wrong. Yet god killed babies in the Bible. He killed Egyptian babies during the Passover, and he drowned babies during the mythical global flood. He also commanded the Israelites to slaughter everyone in certain towns, including children and babies (Deut chp 13).

No, I don't believe in sin, because sin is tied directly to the god of the Bible, in which I don't believe.

If we're given a god-given conscience to know right from wrong, then that means that your views on right and wrong line up with what god says in the Bible? So when he says in Exodus and Deuteronomy that you can own another person as property, you believe that's acceptable? When he says eating shellfish is an abomination, you agree with that? When he says homosexuals and blasphemers should be put to death, you agree with that? If we have a god-given conscience to know right from wrong, why does my conscience tell me that much of what's in the Bible is disgusting, deplorable, detestable and despicable?

You realize there are some Christians who believe that killing in self defence is not acceptable, right? They see ALL killing as wrong, even in self defence.

I've never been presented with any evidence that our conscience comes from any god, let alone the god of the Bible. Can you demonstrate this to be true?

"The fact that your god made people inferior to him then punishes them for being inferior to him makes him look really stupid."

Equality between two entities means having the same strengths, weaknesses, as well as worth. However, being the creator always bears an inherent superiority over the created. If not superiority then authority. And yet God also has attributes that man have not. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and He is morally incorruptible (Isaiah 45:6-7, Psalm 139:8, Proverbs 24:12, John 21:17, Romans 11:33-36 & Numbers 23:19).

"You say sin keeps people from going to Heaven. No one has ever shown me compelling evidence that Heaven even exists. If you have some, I'd like to hear it."

I don't want to begin a new topic but I'll just address this before I move on. I cannot prove you the existence of heaven any more than I can prove to you that I am an Angel. Nevertheless, each and every one of us knows God exists (Romans 1:18-25). I know this is laughable but then if the Bible is correct, because of our rebellious nature we are willfully blinded.

For one, the proof of God is in the creation. I'm sure you've heard of the Watchmaker analogy. If there is a design then there must be a designer but somehow that's insufficient. Second, there is what's called, Cognitive Dissonance. What it is is that our mind filters what makes sense and what is unacceptable (1). Together, if God only chose reason as evidence of Himself, then our Carnal Mind (Romans 8:7) will not settle for it but demand proofs.

From my perspective reason alone suffice in proving the existence of God. Reason after all is what differentiates us from the animal kingdom as well as it serves to safeguard us from superstition and introduces logic. It is Reason that also brought us the Confucian, Grecian and Enlightenment philosophies. So why reason wholly insufficient to the many who doubt or deny God's existence? I know that what seems to be right can very well be wrong so it must be tested, and yet the prevailing mindset for the same is "Seeing is Believing".

I think those who strictly hold to that will be unconvinced. Not because of the lack of evidence but because they don't want to believe in the first place.

"If god is by nature good, then that means he can't do anything wrong, correct? Yet I'm sure you would say killing babies is wrong. Yet god killed babies in the Bible. He killed Egyptian babies during the Passover, and he drowned babies during the mythical global flood. He also commanded the Israelites to slaughter everyone in certain towns, including children and babies (Deut chp 13)."

With everything God does is with reason. Why He killed the first born you must read the story; particularly between Pharaoh and Moses. If you do, you will see the escalating judgments of God that finally brought upon the deaths of the 1st born Egyptians. It was only then that the Pharaoh released the Hebrews.

"No, I don't believe in sin, because sin is tied directly to the god of the Bible, in which I don't believe."

But if God is real, then what? You see, long before Galileo, the shape of the earth was already known in the OT (Isaiah 40:22) and before Isaac Newton's theory of Gravity, the Bible had already spoken of it (Job 38:4). Would you reject the Bible's natural revelation because of its religious association?

"If we're given a god-given conscience to know right from wrong, then that means that your views on right and wrong line up with what god says in the Bible? So when he says in Exodus and Deuteronomy that you can own another person as property, you believe that's acceptable? When he says eating shellfish is an abomination, you agree with that? When he says homosexuals and blasphemers should be put to death, you agree with that? If we have a god-given conscience to know right from wrong, why does my conscience tell me that much of what's in the Bible is disgusting, deplorable, detestable and despicable?"

Slavery then is different from what we know about slavery today. 1st, slavery was very common then. 2nd, people are made slaves come as slaves either because of an unpaid debt, captured in battle, or is a criminal; not just being kidnapped. 3rd. unlike American slavery, slaves in the ancient world, while subservient are promised liberty after a certain number of years. In Exodus 21:2-26 says that there is a seven-year a person is to remain a slave and with that, rules in the treatment of. Also, Masters are to treat their slaves fairly and give them their just due (Colossians 4:1). With Roman slaves, they can also earn or buy their freedom and be citizens.

".... When he says homosexuals and blasphemers should be put to death, you agree with that?"

Today, no because of the New Covenant that came with Jesus. I believe that the Gospel should never be spread by the sword and I don't believe in moral executions unless the crime committed is heinous in nature. So today, I am against the killing of Homosexuals, witches, and blasphemers.

However, the Promised Land doesn't just belong to the Hebrews but God. Miracles were also more common then (which proves God's existence and mastery over pagan gods) so no one has an excuse to commit abominable sin. He had already set rules in prohibition so to again commit abominable sin is asking for death. Besides this, the Hebrews prior to their entry vowed to live by the commandments and so the prohibitions apply still.

"If we have a god-given conscience to know right from wrong, why does my conscience tell me that much of what's in the Bible is disgusting, deplorable, detestable and despicable?"

Because we're also a product of our environment which in turn, shapes our conscience. Go back to the Viking Age, or the Mongol conquest, invading other people's lands, pillaging, and brutally putting down resistance was the way to go along with slaughtering whole populations to ensure that they not rise again to fight, What they did, was probably the thing that was done to them, and so no one has a reason to sit down and ponder over deeds.

Not only that, we don't often see what God sees; this is due to our finite minds seeing what can only be seen on the ground level.. What we see as unfair or cruel, God sees as just (Isaiah 55:7-8).

"You realize there are some Christians who believe that killing in self defence is not acceptable, right? They see ALL killing as wrong, even in self defence".

I do. And they're also the product of their environment. Conscience is not a perfect thing like a computer; It can be shaped, trained, or suppressed/ And yet still we nevertheless have the same sense of right and wrong and the proof of that is with the religions of the world. Every successful religion from Hinduism to Islam roughly equals Christianity because all have basic moral ethics that matches it. Even the Barbarians that while they raid and pillage have prohibitions against stealing and murder for their own people.

I've never been presented with any evidence that our conscience comes from any god, let alone the god of the Bible. Can you demonstrate this to be true?

Noi it actually shows how heinous sin is to Him; that animal sacrifices are insufficient to pay for any sin.

Allow me to put it this way you: if you are capable of violating your God-given conscience (Genesis 1:26 & Romans 2:14-16) and sin, then you can commit any sin. Also that once a sin is committed, it cannot be reversed which is why it is not possible to compensate for it (Isaiah 64:6). And since a murderer is not so-called because s/he murders every day, then what are we?

And if you've sinned 8x a day, then what is the total in a single week, a month, and a year? And after 80 years of your life or at the end, how many have you committed?

So is animal sacrifice sufficient to pay for sins? I'm sure you'd like to think it is, because to you perhaps they're that precious. Maybe even to you that an animal's life is equal in value and worth to a human being, but that is according to you. And not to God (Isaiah 55:7-8).

That doesn't change the fact that he punishes people for being inferior to him, when he made them that way. Also, if he is morally incorruptible, why does he do things which would be considered immoral or a human did them? Isn't he supposed to be the standard and measure of what is right behavior?

I'm glad you admit you cannot prove Heaven is real, but that should trouble you, since a large part of your belief system depends upon it being real. Otherwise, I have no need to accept Jesus as my savior.

"...each and every one of us knows God exists (Romans 1:18-25)"

I don't know that God exists. Let's break down that passage in Romans 1, since I hear it a lot.

18: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness

Not believing something is real is not the same as suppressing it. I don't suppress knowledge of god anymore than I suppress knowledge of unicorns and magic pixies. And if you say that unicorns and magic pixies don't exist, then I shall have no choice but to accuse you of suppressing the truth of their existence in unrighteousness.

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

It's not plain to me. What am I supposed to be seeeing that is so plain? I don't see god anywhere. Nor do I see any evidence that he's real. If it were really so plain to see, I would see it and believe it.

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

I don't see anything in nature that points to the god of the Bible. I see nature. Nothing in the natural world leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the specific god of the Bible exists, or any god for that matter. Replace god with magic pixies, and it's just as accurate. "For since the creation of the world the magic pixies' invisible qualities—their eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." This verse is commonly thrown around by believers who can't accept that there are actually people in the world who don't believe their god exists.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Well, I can't glorify or give thanks to a god I don't believe in. Also, my thinking is far from futile. It's what helps me understand and learn about the world around me.

22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

Ad hominem fallacy. Very burn. Such aloe. Many ouch. So rebuttal.

23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

A reference to idolatry. I don't practice idolatry, so this doesn't apply to me. And just to nip another common idea in the bud, I don't believe I am god.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

*70s porn music*

25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Again, I don't worship any created things.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

*70s porn music*

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

*70s porn music*

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

That describes a lot of people, both Christian and non-Christian.

32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

I don't agree that gossips, slanderers, gays, God-haters, arrogant or boastful people who disobey their parents deserve death. And I feel sorry for anyone who does.

"That doesn't change the fact that he punishes people for being inferior to him, when he made them that way.

Why do you think they're being punished for their inferiority?

"Also, if he is morally incorruptible, why does he do things which would be considered immoral or a human did them? Isn't he supposed to be the standard and measure of what is right behavior?"

Shouldn't a structural engineer be more right with regard to the weaknesses and strengths of a bridge than a pedestrian who wants to use it? In the same way, He cannot compromise His judgment for the sake of appearing right to us. Certain things He had, simply because of the hardness of our hearts (Matthew 19:3-8). This might be the same reason He allowed slavery. And mind you, He had never established it.

"I'm glad you admit you cannot prove Heaven is real, but that should trouble you, since a large part of your belief system depends upon it being real. Otherwise, I have no need to accept Jesus as my savior.":

I can't produce proofs but there are pieces of evidence that, as a Judge in a courtroom must decide the guilt or innocence of the Defendant by the evidence available.

"I don't know that God exists. Let's break down that passage in Romans 1, since I hear it a lot."

If the Bible is correct, regardless of what evidence is presented to you, you won't believe. Not because the evidence is insufficient, but because you want to be independent of God (John 3:19).

"And if you say that unicorns and magic pixies don't exist, then I shall have no choice but to accuse you of suppressing the truth of their existence in unrighteousness."

You would be right in doing so if I did say so unless the Bible is the word of God.

"It's not plain to me. What am I supposed to be seeeing that is so plain? I don't see god anywhere. Nor do I see any evidence that he's real. If it were really so plain to see, I would see it and believe it."

As said before, Cognitive Dissonance. Nature provides reasons enough. After all, nothing ever comes about by itself yet the scientific community still holds to the Big Bang theory. It seemed easier to believe in that theory than the miraculous.

"...This verse is commonly thrown around by believers who can't accept that there are actually people in the world who don't believe their god exists."

This entire passage is one big case of sour grapes. There are people who don't believe in the same god as Paul, so he just insults them, as if that's a valid argument.

"For one, the proof of God is in the creation."

That's begging the question, which is a logical fallacy. You're trying to prove a creator exists, but your argument begins with the assumption that the universe was created by that very entity. You're assuming from the beginning the very thing you're trying to prove. Imagine if I was trying to prove that magic pixies exist, and I say "the proof that magic pixies exist is the universe created by magic pixies".

"I'm sure you've heard of the Watchmaker analogy. If there is a design then there must be a designer but somehow that's insufficient."

Yes, I'm familiar with the watchmaker argument, and it's silly. You believe all of nature was intelligently designed, yet in the argument, the watch (which we know was intelligently designed) is juxtaposed with nature, which is supposed to also be intelligently designed. How can you compare two things that are supposed to both be intelligently designed to know that one of them was intelligently designed? Wouldn't you have to compare it to something not intelligently designed? But according to your worldview, there is nothing that was not intelligently designed to use as a reference point. It's a completely self-defeating argument. To put it another way:

"Look at this watch in the middle of the beach! Clearly it's intelligently designed."

"How do you know?"

"Because it stands out from everything around it, like sand and rocks, which are just natural things."

"But you believe the sand and rocks and other natural things were also intelligently designed by god, right?"

Also, something having the appearance of design doesn't mean it was designed. If a boulder rolls down a hill and leaves a path, and you come along later and see the path, would you conclude that the path was made by an intelligent being, or that it occurred naturally?

"...if God only chose reason as evidence of Himself, then our Carnal Mind (Romans 8:7) will not settle for it but demand proofs."

And all intelligent, rational people should demand proof for claims that are made.

To many people, myself included, it doesn't suffice; not even close. You can't reason something into existence. All reason does is show that something is likely to exist. You would still need to show convincing evidence that that thing really does exist.

"Reason after all is what differentiates us from the animal kingdom..."

I know what you mean, but I should point out that humans are part of the animal kingdom.

"...as well as it serves to safeguard us from superstition and introduces logic."

You mean like the superstition that is so prevalent in the Bible?

"So why reason wholly insufficient to the many who doubt or deny God's existence?"

Because reason only gets you so far when it comes to proving something true.

"I know that what seems to be right can very well be wrong so it must be tested..."

I agree. Now how do we go about testing for the existence of god?

"I think those who strictly hold to that will be unconvinced. Not because of the lack of evidence but because they don't want to believe in the first place."

This is another argument I hear a lot. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I can assure you that for me, it has nothing at all to do with what I want to believe. It has to do with what I am convinced is true. And I am not convinced that the existence of god is true. I do not believe the evidence supports that claim.

I have. And it's a horrible story. God is angry with Pharaoh so he kills little children and babies who did nothing wrong? And you say he's good? You're justifying the slaughter of little kids. Any god who does that doesn't deserve my worship, plain and simple.

"But if God is real, then what?"

If he's real, then I guess I'm wrong. But that "if" is so incredibly unlikely, it's a risk I'm perfectly willing to take.

"You see, long before Galileo, the shape of the earth was already known in the OT (Isaiah 40:22)"

http://www.crivoice.org/circle.html

That verse uses the word for circle. A circle is flat. If it meant sphere, it would have used a different word. The Bible does not say the Earth is a sphere. The people who wrote it believed the Earth was a flat disk, with Heaven above and Sheol below.

Job 38:4 says nothing about gravity. It talks about the "foundations of the Earth". The Bible makes numerous references to the Earth having foundations or pillars. The Bible authors clearly believed the Earth was immovable. The Bible never gives any indication that the Earth goes around the sun. Just the opposite, in fact.

Slavery is slavery. The slavery practiced in the Bible was savage and barbaric. Just because it was "very common then" makes no difference.

Again, slavery is slavery. Whether a person becomes a slave as a result of being captured in battle or being sold by a slave trader, it's all terrible.

Slaves in the Bible are only given freedom after a certain number of years, and if they want to stay with their master, they become slaves for life and cannot leave. And that seventh year freedom only applies to Hebrew slaves, not slaves from other places.

"Also, Masters are to treat their slaves fairly"

Like beat them viciously as long as they don't die right away? That's what it says in Exodus 21:20-21. In fact it even says the slave is their *property*. As in, not a human being with equal rights.

"So today, I am against the killing of Homosexuals, witches, and blasphemers."

Were you in support of it during Old Testament times? Was it okay that they did it?

"Miracles were also more common then (which proves God's existence and mastery over pagan gods)"

So it's just a coincidence that we see far fewer "miracles" in a day and time when science better helps us to understand how the world actually works?

"Because we're also a product of our environment which in turn, shapes our conscience."

I agree. And the Bible was written at a time when things like owning slaves and killing blasphemers was accepted by society. That doesn't make it right.

"Go back to the Viking Age, or the Mongol conquest, invading other people's lands, pillaging, and brutally putting down resistance was the way to go along with slaughtering whole populations to ensure that they not rise again to fight."

You're probably right. But that doesn't make it justified, just because that was the norm back then.

"What we see as unfair or cruel, God sees as just (Isaiah 55:7-8)."

That sounds like an excuse people use to rationalize why god allows horrible things to happen. They can't say he's bad for allowing bad things, so they just tell themselves that "he works in mysterious ways", as if that makes it all better.

The fact that different religions have similar values and moral standards tells me that god clearly isn't the source of morality. Otherwise, only Christianity and Judaism (maybe) would have these values and standards.

You see a difference between the two. I don't. Also, that would make the death of Jesus a human sacrifice. I thought hunan sacrifice was a horrible pagan, heathen practice. Also, if Jesus is god, how can he sacrifice himself to himself?

I know Christian theology pretty well. I'm guessing you would say that the difference is that Jesus was sinless, the son of god while also being god, etc., that only his blood had the power to wash away sin, etc

In Pagan religions, the deities demanded the offender to appease them through animal sacrifices.

In the OT while animals were used, it never appeased God as such sacrifices were only temporary; a picture to what was to come

And in the NT, He sacrificed His only Son to finally pay for the sins of the people.

Now as for the barbarity of the sacrifices... would you rather that humans are sacrificed instead? Unlike many of the Pagan religions such as Druidism, Aztec, and the Semitic religions, God never asked to have humans sacrificed which included child sacrifices.

You could say that, but true Christianity didn't come about until the time of Jesus, in the old testament the main religion was Judaism. Today's Christians and Jews wouldn't consider themselves to be of the same religion, even if they do share a common history.

What you say is true; but keep in mind that Jesus came back to life after 3 days, the same can't be said for the animal sacrifices.
People often ask "If God is so good, why does he allow bad things to happen?" It would seem that God allows bad things to happen to prevent even worse things from happening. Christians believe that without Christ's death on the cross all people would be condemned to an eternity in Hell. One person dying on a cross and being resurrected 3 days later is surely better than an eternity of damnation for the entire human race.

That's the thing about those who don't believe, they demand proof that anything attributed to God really happened. There's 3 references to such in the Bible: Matthew 12:38-42, Mark 8:11-12 and Luke 11:29-32.

It's reasonable to assume that if Jesus was a real person, that people may have seen him die on a cross. I don't believe it's reasonable to assume, based on the historical evidence (or rather lack thereof), that people found his tomb empty. We don't actually know for sure where Jesus was buried, so we can't say his tomb is empty. Crucified people were often thrown on trash heaps after they died. It's very possible that's what actually happened to Jesus. We have no way of knowing any details for sure.

I'm not going to read the story of the cat because it's not relevant in any way to this discussion.

Am I going to say that the resurrection story of Jesus is all a hoax? I never said it was. I don't believe a deliberate hoax is very likely, but that doesn't mean the only remaining option is that it's totally true.

Based on everything I know about how the physical world works, I have no reason to believe that someone coming back to life after being dead for three days is likely, or even possible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The supposed resurrection of Jesus is an extraordinary claim. The evidence that it's true is appallingly weak.

"...perhaps the Bible hasn't got things exactly right..."

The Bible got some things totally wrong. Like, so incredibly wrong that people who say the Bible has no mistakes are holding an indefensible position.

"...but if we consider things like science saying a bumble bee can't fly or a that kangaroo shouldn't be able hop..."

Science doesn't say either of those. People many years ago used to think that a bumblebee's fight violated certain physical laws, but we know now that that was wrong.

"...isn't it at least plausible that some kind of intelligence..."

I see no evidence in the physical world of anything which can be said with any level of certainty or confidence to be the result of any intelligent supernatural agency.

All the available evidence points to evolution and common ancestry, not Adam and Eve.

"...how is it that we as humans were the only ones to develop such vast intellect?"

Demanding proof for unusual claims is what intelligent, honest people do. They don't just believe whatever someone tells them. If I told you that I can fly by flapping my arms, would you believe me, or would you want to see proof?

That's the thing about religions, including Christianity, that makes them so harmful and disgusting: they demand that people believe claims, even bizarre claims, based purely on faith, not on evidence. And in fact they criticize people who would have the nerve to ask for evidence. Any system that demands to be believed on faith is garbage, and it's intellectually bankrupt.

The Bible covers that too, ever heard of a doubting Thomas?
Some things can't be proven, could you ever prove or disprove that love is real? Can someone prove they once dreamt of been chased by a green, 3 eyed monster?

I'll admit I can't prove it myself, but if Jesus was a flesh and blood man that people could see and speak to, then it's reasonable to assume there were eyewitnesses who saw him die on the cross, and also that people visited the tomb of a man who was reputedly dead only to find he wasn't dead after all. Here' a story of a cat that was thought to be dead but later turned up alive https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weird-news/dead-florida-cat-claws-his-way-back-life-days-later-n295431 are you going to say outright that it's all a hoax? Or are you at least going to consider the possibility that it might be true?
I'll grant you there's no definitive proof that God exists, and perhaps the Bible hasn't got things exactly right, which is good reason to doubt; but if we consider things like science saying a bumble bee can't fly or a that kangaroo shouldn't be able hop but the fact that they can, isn't it at least plausible that some kind of intelligence found a way round these problems? We can choose to believe that God didn't create Adam out of dust and Eve out of Adam's ribs and rather that humans evolved from apes, but as various species such as birds, insects and even one mammal i.e. bats developed wings to fly, and several other various species such as snakes, spiders and some fish developed venom, and still others such as cats, crocodiles and sharks developed sharp teeth; then how is it that we as humans were the only ones to develop such vast intellect? Why didn't any other species develop a system of writing or build vehicles to get around in? The Bible says we were made in God's images and hints at us been specifically designed to acknowledge a higher creator, considering we're the only ones to even consider such a possibility, and that our intellect greatly sets us apart from other animals, doesn’t it seem plausible that there might be some grain of truth in the idea of a higher creator? Even if things didn’t happen quite the way the Bible says, can we be absolutely certain that there is no God at all?

I forgot to point out also, though it covers their sins, it doesn't remove the guilt. Later on, the people added another sacrifice called "guilt" sacrifice... but even that didn't do it.

This led them to the practice of baptism, remember John was baptizing people long before the coming of Christ. Water baptism was a common ritual developed through the time to symbolically wash these people so they can rid themselves of the guilt. Of course, even THAT doesn't really take the guilt away.

This ultimately links to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is why grace ... and grace alone can truly cover all sin. So this is why those who are baptized in the HS should not feel any guilt anymore.

"All have sinned and come short of the glory of god". The Bible says that people are punished for not living up to god's standard of perfect righteousness, even though we aren't able to in the first place. That's like telling a quadriplegic to climb Mt Everest, then punishing them when they can't.

"He cannot compromise His judgment for the sake of appearing right to us."

What does "appearing right" mean? Either his actions are right or they aren't. And if he is morally perfect and decides what is moral (which is self-fulfilling anyway, like someone who says "I get to decide what 'handsome' is, and I'm really handsome"), why don't his moral laws line up with most people's consciences?

"This might be the same reason He allowed slavery."

If slavery is truly abominable, he had the power to completely condemn it, but he didn't. He completely condemned eating shelllfish, working on the sabbath and coveting things, but he couldn't bring himself to completely condemn owning another human being as property?

"If the Bible is correct, regardless of what evidence is presented to you, you won't believe."

Yet people come to Christianity every single day, because they believe the evidence that is presented to them.

"Not because the evidence is insufficient, but because you want to be independent of God (John 3:19)."

This is a case of sour grapes, just like Romans 1. I can say with full confidence that the evidence truly is insufficient.

I was recently listening to a conversation between a Christian and an atheist. The Christian's arguments were falling flat, and the atheist said (I'm paraphrasing) "if god truly wanted to use you to convert me, why is he giving you arguments to use that are so ineffective? Wouldn't he give you an argument that completely blows me out of the water?"

"Nature provides reasons enough."

Nature only proves that nature exists. In fact, you're trying to point to nature as evidence of god, who is supernatural. How does anything in nature point to the supernatural existing?

The scientific community holds to the Big Bang theory because that's what the evidence points to.

"It seemed easier to believe in that theory than the miraculous."

Seeing as how miracles are supposed to be supernatural phenomena, and scientists only deal with natural phenomena, that is true.

If by that, you mean that there aren't any Christians who refuse to accept that some people don't believe in their god, that is true. Presuppositionalists believe that literally everyone "knows" that god exists.

Thank you very much for actually having reason. That "spaceguru" guy down towards the end of the comments was extremely annoying. I have seen many Christians who get so heated up if you think God isn't real or mention anything related to god. These extremely long comments are evedence of that. I mean, this is litterally a meme site! Those people also always seem to be so serious about the bible and Adam and eve. They will get mad if you just say, "Jesus christ!" I also appreciate how you debunked creationism with a few users. we, and every other creative, EVOLVED! I also can't stand how when you ask for proof of god and heaven, they just say, "the bible." The bible could have been written by literally anyone! If I wrote down that all your missdoings has been voided just because I said so and that all your problems will go away on a piece of paper and waited 3,000 years, that would be the same thing!

I've heard some Christians say that if someone came up to them and said that god had a message for them, they would immediately be skeptical, because why wouldn't he just tell them directly? Yet they don't seem to realize that that's exactly what the Bible is. It's a bunch of people saying "god has an important message for you and he wanted me to tell it to you". Umm...why can't he just tell me himself, if he really exists? Why should I trust anything you say? And more importantly, if your god has a message for me, why would he have that message delivered by fallible humans who could get it wrong, mess it up, or even outright lie? If he's all-powerful, why does he need you to be his go-between?

A few things here. One, you got this from comment awards on YouTube. Two, I was making this exact same Meme way earlier but forgot to submit it. Three, congratulations on getting front page. Four, I don't know why I'm still doing imgflip anymore because this just proves that no matter how hard I try I will never get front page.